Posts by da'squid

Fine them? Why?

Idiots.

Anyway, what's the point of imposing financial penalties on a council for something like an info leak? 'Oh, sorry Mr* Council-Tax-Paying-Member-of-Public, we leaked your info, and now YOU have to pay for that mistake financially too.

Here's an idea - hold the idiot (at a appropriate managerial oversight level) responsible for the leak financially. That should focus some minds.

Yeah, the black guy was most likely local. In other words he knew better than to argue with US cops. An open hand shove to a cop is hardly the height of assault, now is it really. I wouldn't be surprised if the cops were throwing their weight around more than a bit. Thing is they don't take at all kindly to any push back, literal or otherwise. Mr G probably didn't appreciate that either when told not to approach.

I'd question the actions of police on the spot in the UK (have done). I'll argue with them too without being physical and while controlling language to a point. Not in the US though. That's madness. The only thing that's going to help here in the land of the free is lot's of yes sir with the emphasis on sir.

A good point well made...

Ad to expand on this point a little:

It's bothered me for some time that it's apparently totally OK to depict gratuitous violence in media, and yet consensual sex is somehow considered 'dirty' and should either not be shown, or obfuscated. It's apparently more OK for our children to see violence vs sex. What's that about?

Wrong

Nope, see if you actually read the law, you'd see that what you have written here is simply untrue. A legitimate defense is if you directly participated in the act, and it was in fact, consensual. See section 51c.

So... all you have to do is show up in court, make sure the jury identify yep it's you on the tape, and then have your wife there too, to let them know it wasn't actually rape. Mmm... sounds like a fun day out doesn't it?

Not at all

Now what you've written here Chris is crap. See, it's not like that at all. What they're saying is yes there are speed limits, here's what the limits are, but no, we're not going to tell you how far over the limit you can go before we'll take the time to prosecute.

All but one of you is dense...

... and that includes the article's author.

The suggestion here is the Scottish authorities are refusing to disclose the law. That's simply bollocks. The law was actually referenced in the article, though it seems only one commentator above may have actually read it. The law is stated in black and white, it's not hidden, secret, or anything else. What the authorities are refusing to say is how far over the threshold one needs to be before they will actually prosecute. So, taking the 30mph speed limit analogy... if you do 31mph you are breaking the law, you are an offender. But you may not be prosecuted until you do 30+x mph, and it's 'x' the authorities are declining to disclose because as they quite rightly observe that would encourage potential offenders to go above the legal threshold while remaining under the prosecution threshold. Jeez, it's not rocket science folks!

I'm on the side of the authority's decision here. As to whether I agree with the law itself is not something I'm sharing to be clear about that.